chyron8472 said:
Assuming there are no ghosts just because you can’t recreate your experiences in a lab doesn’t make it fact that there are no ghosts.I’m going to need some explanation here because this sentence is confusing me.
You say you have experiences with ghosts. You say it may not have been ghosts. To say it was not ghosts, is not “fact” just because you can’t prove in a lab that it was ghosts. Science is content with saying “I don’t know”. Science doesn’t say “No, because you can’t prove yes.”
It would be much closer to fact and reality to blame my ghost sightings on paranoia or mental illness than it would be to assume or even consider the possibility that they were real ghosts that were harassing me.
You don’t know that. You can’t verify that.
No, but it is obviously the healthy and sensical conclusion to draw. Wouldn’t you say?
My point is, whether I say so or not, and whether you say so or not, does not make it fact that there were not ghosts.
I’m just taking issue with the assertion that God not existing is fact, nor closer-to-fact. I do not claim my testimony is fact. But it is not not-evidence just because you don’t find it credible.
JEDIT: And no, I would say the healthy conclusion to draw is “I don’t know.” Not to just assume you’re a few cards short of a full deck.